===

“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe, the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. But from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.”

unitarian minister and slavery abolitionist Theodore Parker

==

“However, even if we accept that citizens are not primarily causally responsible for our poor information environments, it could be argued that they nonetheless have a remedial responsibility to mend them.”

Solmu Anttila

===

James Fell, who is a must read for everyone, recently published a piece called “the moral arc of the universe is bullshit.”  James, being James, suggests the arc of human nature is more “go fuck yourself” rather than any commitment to greater good. Anyone who reads my thinking knows I do not agree. But. And this is a big but. As I wrote years ago, I am constantly disappointed with humans. I have come to the conclusion that while people are inherently kind, and the arc of the moral universe does eventually bend toward justice, the arc doesn’t bend unless an exponentially larger amount of morally just people are involved – than the morally unjust people. I have said, again and again, the morally unjust seem to have an outsized power and outsized effect despite their fewer numbers. The corrupt, morally and behaviorally, simply bludgeon society and civilization with a wanton disregard for chaos and mayhem. They act without norms and rules and regulations, and laws are viewed as simply things that other people do. I do not pretend to understand why they think that way or act the way they do, but it worries me how many people view them as successes. What I would point out to those people, and have, is success in the moment is not reflective of success in the future. From the heights of morally corrupt wealth gains, the falls are many and deep. It would behoove us to point that out and maybe even celebrate the fall more often and more loudly.

Which leads me to the arc of humanity.

“I’m trying to make the case that humanity is worth it.”

John Green

If you step back into United States history, I could argue the westward expansion of pioneers fostered many of the Democratic beliefs and practices. What I mean by that is the problems facing pioneers were unique from their past experiences. In fact, many of the problems, and issues, required solutions difficult to understand to the non-pioneers. I could argue every wagon trail, and every ensuing settlement, became an infant republic. I could even argue basic social democracy was embedded in initial settlements as class distinctions almost seemed meaningless where hard work, teamwork, and speculation not only was the line between death and survival, but also thriving in that it could transform whole poverty-stricken communities, or individuals, into a higher wealth strata. It was a unique type of social equality where, in many situations, resilience and hard work was everyone’s initial wealth. The problem in discussing today’s arc of overall humanity is that there is a myth that all these pioneers were unusually individualistic marked by an independence of thought and action and adventure. The reality was the majority of pioneers understood that it took a village to be successful, if not to survive. There was an acknowledged interdependence, and interconnectedness, which created a bond of community and ultimately prosperity. The true individualistic individuals were few and far between and while, mythically, we empower them with superhuman morals and ethics the majority of the truly individualistic people had what James Fell called a ‘fuck you attitude.’ A few became exorbitantly wealthy and powerful (at the expense of others), but for the most part the majority – through hard work and resilience and a sense of community – bent the arc of morality and progress and prosperity.

Which leads me to the larger lesson: there is a difference between myth and reality.

We celebrate individualism (and so-called grit), but in reality, resilience is found in community bonds. Social cohesiveness is simply stronger than any one individual. I will also add that a community of morally just is always more powerful than the morally unjust. Why? The morally unjust are zero-sum and individualistic. Even in a team they always have an eye out to screw the others to their personal benefit. They are constantly seeking to tear down while communities are constantly seeking to build. And maybe that is where I will end this section. Builders always win in the end. I do not pretend to understand people other than I believe people like to build things.

Which leads me back to human involvement with arcs.

“Consensus reality is gone. We are blessed to live now, in the West, in a strange world without

common sense. As fact grows stranger than fiction, we should embrace the surreal and try harder to imagine more outlandish fictions. We might begin by accepting that we are being lied to all the time, that most of what we hear and see is an illusion, misrepresentation, or performance—and that’s fine. Life has in many ways become a fiction, reality is vanishing under its own representations, we are suffering from collective delusions, we are teetering on the precipice of the real, with a multiverse of fantasies spinning out beneath us.”

Dean Kissick (on contemporary art)

Arcs are patterns. And therein lies possibly humanity’s greatest present challenge. In a truly globalized, interconnected, world we are constantly aware of everything and, yet, incapable of perceiving the patterns, and arc, of the greater whole. This actually doesn’t drive us ‘up’ to engage and macro-ly seek to see patterns, but rather it drives us ‘down’ where ‘vibes’ replace real patterns. I think this is called apophenia (seeing patterns where there are none, overloading the particular with excessive significance, and reframing one’s own disparate observations as generalizable cultural commentary). It is within apophenia where conspiracies thrive. If you cannot ‘see’ a real pattern you create one. I do not pretend to understand conspiracy embracers, but I clearly understand why someone seeks a conspiracy explanation. It is here that I will suggest a conspiracy is not being involved in the arc of humanity – it is simply unhealthy speculation about humanity. Involvement is actually a team sport. So, if you read “we are created equal with inalienable rights which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as an individual endeavor, you are pursuing something other than being involved in they arc of humanity. You are simply becoming involved in creating chaos where each individual particle never bonds with anyone, or anything, but rather spins out of control in some unbounded space.

Yeah. The arc of humanity is not bent by any one individual. That is a myth. Reality is the arc of humanity can only be bent when a community of people decide to establish a pattern. I imagine I do not even pretend to understand how people do not understand that. Ponder.

“The enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth-persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”

John F. Kennedy

==

“that’s the same thing as having an affair”

==

The closing arguments in the presidential campaign is a contrast in a number of things, but mostly it has become a contrast between respectful and disrespectful. One campaign has unequivocally stated that no matter who you vote for you will be listened to and represented and the other has, well, referred to ‘other voters’ as the enemy within. The heinous parts are tucked within the definition of ‘enemy.’ Because in this case the enemy is grounded in some 1800’s version of what a traditional marriage should be about – women subservient to men. Yeah. Reminder. Its 2024 not 1824.

Which leads me to a Harris-Walz campaign ad voiced by actor Julia Roberts which encourages women to vote for Vice President Harris in the presidential election, even if their husbands are backing former President Trump.

“In the one place in America where women still have a right to choose, you can vote any way you want. And no one will ever know,” Roberts says in the ad as a woman on screen meets up with her husband after casting her ballot for Harris. The voter winks at a fellow female voter as her husband asks if she made the “right choice.”

Suffice it to say, MAGA world has not responded well. In fact, some have suggested that a wife lying about her vote is as bad as an affair. Yeah. Ponder that one as a closing argument.

“If I found out Emma was going to the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair”

Fox News host Jesse Watters

==

“I think it’s so gross. I think it’s so nauseating where this wife is wearing the American hat, she’s coming in with her sweet husband who probably works his tail off to make sure that she can go you know and have a nice life and provide to the family, and then she lies to him saying, ‘Oh, yeah, I’m gonna vote for Trump,’ and then she votes for Kamala Harris as her little secret in the voting booth”

Charlie Kirk

To be clear. They are suggesting a husband is working hard to afford his wife’s lifestyle and her action undermines him. Ponder that just a bit.

Look. I am sure there are politically split households, but in the Trump era it is just difficult for me to envision. It is quite conceivable that someone could have voted for Romney in the same household where someone voted for Obama, but Trump is so divisive, and not normal, that it seems like a bridge too far. But I believe that is something that particular couple needs to navigate, not me. Regardless. The idea that a woman, a wife or partner, simply has to do anything let alone vote some way simply because the man does is a horrible thought. Oh. And a horrible closing argument to the majority of a 2024 population.

“Listen to this twit make Donald Trump’s closing argument. Women, you know what to do. #VoteKamala.”

==

“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”

Plato

==

“Good buildings come from good people, and all problems are solved by good design.”

Stephen Gardiner

==

This began as conversations with a number of people about technology and technology companies. But what I quickly found myself doing in conversation after conversation is shifting away from technology, specifically, and just speaking about people. What I mean by that is that we have a tendency to speak of humans in a dehumanizing way with regard to technology, i.e., some nebulous good actors and bad actors. If we strip away the word ‘actors,’ at its core we’re basically speaking of people and, therefore, discussions around technology or society or business or almost any facet of a community and civilization should revolve around what makes a person do what they do. I don’t disagree that we need some fairly heroic efforts to address our technology driven future, but maybe instead of heroic we should simply speak of behavioral values.

Which leads me to technology and the future.

That said. I do agree heroic efforts are needed to bend the arc of technology. I believe people, left to their own devices, would design a nice tech future. And while technology may be an opposing force, I would argue its business’s objectives that drive the future off course. I say that because I am less worried about ttechnology and more worried about business. Fix business and technology stuff, as well as the people stuff, will follow (in my mind). I worry a bit about bad actors, maybe a bit less than most people, because I see good actors stepping up to the plate and fighting the bad actors. If you haven’t listened to this podcast Kevin Scott  , at the end he offers up his view on this (and I have stated that view for several years so I agree). It’s a good listen in general although I find he, as do most tech people, talk about rural in a very tech-centric siloed way (and I have other views about how tech could help the rural splits). Regardless. The ‘good actors’ will be the ones who recognize:

• it is a humancentric world where the optimal future is found in technology as an augmentor
• there will be uneven distribution of benefits from technology and we should seek to mitigate that
• it should be a learning-oriented future

Which leads me to who the good actors will be.

Sometimes the problem in today’s world is that it’s not particularly easy to be identify the good actors versus the bad actors especially as there is an increasing level of self-identified rebels (all proposing they are rebels for the good of people). The rebels are rarely hesitant about specifying which things, including values, they reject. The problem is everybody feels like they are rebel these days. What that means is that every one, every citizen, will at some point have some aspects of their life ridiculed by argumentative rebels. And when everyone becomes a rebel, the entire narrative will fundamentally get mired into the mud of hypocrisy. What I mean by that is a fundamental cause of disaffection is the contradiction between what any particular community, or class of people, says it believes; and what it does. These contradictions create confusion and that confusion takes on some fairly ugly hues which ultimately contaminates our view of society. The contamination is captured n some seeming hypocrisy. We may say we believe in mobility, but not for some people. We may say we believe in a Christian ethic, but not in business. Across the country we preach morality and yet certain people don’t have to play by those rules. We support altruistic endeavors, but we vilify anyone who works for it. We proclaim ourselves to be nonviolent people driven by hope and aspirations, but we insist that each person be allowed to have his or her own gun and fear ultimately drives the fundamental desire to own a gun. We preach the virtue of loyalty and business, yet we see the people who do this often reach the age of retirement spiritually empty and economically unprepared. We view success in society grounded in a creed of accumulation, but ultimately, we discover that this brings neither happiness nor stability. This creates a constant state of contradictions and hypocrisy within which good actors and bad actors battle.

Which leads me to rebels as good and bad.

So, our rebels tend to be good and bad. But maybe we should judge the rebellious a little differently accepting that the majority of life and progress is found in between the contradictions. What I mean by that is the progress typically resides in the gray. And while responsibility demands black and white, and the solutions demand a proper assumption of responsibility in the attention to the problems requiring change, the solutions are not simple nor simplistic. The true heroic rebels and the good people are those who showcase a willingness to challenge the patterns, which is not about change in particular, for it is within navigating the patterns and challenging them which instigates the change where it is needed. I would argue the truth is the rebellious shouldn’t focus on some generic set of values, but rather an increased emphasis upon the most vital of values: responsibility. And the true test of the good rebellious resides somewhere in a future where the responsibility to affect the patterns is not exciting, but merely hard work. Yeah. Less flashy victories just simply the performance over the long haul that determines the value of the rebellion and the rebellious.

Which leads me to optimism.

In a world which encourages dystopian thinking and dystopian views, optimism is often the most ridiculed of values. I will confess that throughout my life I have generally been optimistic. I often refer to myself as a cynical optimist. That said. Part of optimism is a belief that it is not illogical to trust, at any given moment, that you will survive. I find it reasonable to think of optimism in that kind of framework. It may seem naïve and uncomfortable to many people to entertain the thought of optimism, but I would be remiss if I didn’t suggest that I am impressed by the power of optimism throughout history. Simultaneously, it is fair to suggest at any given point we will go into some kind of collapse and when we do all the dystopian thinkers can say I told you so. But. Up until the “I told you so” moment, millions of  businesses will have been started, millions of people will have hugged each other, millions of people will have economically improved, and millions of people will just simply be better today than they were the day before. It is with that thought I believe cautious optimism should be the foundation of mindsets, attitudes, and beliefs. I’m certainly not suggesting that we shouldn’t be mindful of the problems that we have, but the truth is we have been living with those problems for decades and in general they shouldn’t  terrify us – and I think a lot more people would benefit by taking a moment and recognizing this. Look. We make progress, never as fast as we want, but the truth is the integration of opportunity is always in progress even if not always recognized. On balance I think cautious optimism is not misplaced. I think we should all have reasonable hopes that not only our own personal lives will get better, but that our communities and our countries will get better also. But in the end if you’re looking for good actors versus bad actors, I remain relatively convinced that the acceptance of responsibility will not only differentiate the productive from the unproductive, but the good actor from the bad actor. The people who organize their lives well, will probably do so around the concept of responsibility. And maybe that is where I am. The good actors are responsible. Ponder.

==

“Oh, you need me.”

==

On the horrible Bill Maher show he recently had on a horrible guest who espoused the idea of democrats demonizing men and the “male crisis.” First. I find it rich that some right wing nutjob is harping on the fragility of men. Whatever happened to self-reliance and “pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps?” Second. A pernicious aspect of this whole male crisis narrative is how they strawman the argument with “toxic masculinity.” What I mean by that is the Right falsely suggests that all men, and masculinity, is broad stroked as ‘toxic’ by “the Left.’ Its nuts, absurd, and creates a false narrative. As a man myself let me be clear, you can be masculine without being toxic. Toxic simply means being a dick. You can be masculine without being a dick. To be clear, as a man myself, all men will be dicks on occasion, but to be toxic you have to be a dick consistently and almost all the time. Selectively being a dick is just being a guy.

Which leads me to what exactly is this “male crisis” we are speaking of.

A lot of men are losing their positions as breadwinners or just losing out on having dominant positions in society. That doesn’t necessarily have to do with men, it just may be a reflection of progress. So before I get to men, specifically, let’s talk progress from a macro perspective. In a complex society where there is progress there will always be some who benefit more than others. Those who may have been marginalized in the past will find opportunities in the wave of progress to get ahead and those who have benefited in the past will no longer have as easy an access to the benefits. Its not exactly a zero-sum game, but it may feel like it. Its actually just asymmetry which is a characteristic of complexity. Society, and economies, are rarely characterized by one similar progress characteristic. There will always be at least one component, or one industry, which will be underperforming versus others. That’s how it works. In this particular case, some men may be underperforming in this wave of progress, or may just feel like they are underperforming, and this creates a multitude of issues – which is being labeled a “crisis” (an absurdity in and of itself).

Which leads me to the male issue.

I cannot remember who the social philosopher was, but someone suggested the core issue is “need.” In order to find meaning, all humans, including men, need to feel two things: they are contributing and their contributions are needed in some way. Simplistically, we humans need to feel needed in some form or fashion. The “needed” creates a sense of connection to other people and the community and the larger society. In its most feminine framing this is ‘nurturing,’ but in the male crisis that is a toxic word (because it is mainly associated with women for some reason). We should note social anthropologist Margaret Mead once said “every known human society has rested on the learned nurturing behavior of men. This behavior being learned is rather fragile and can disappear quickly in circumstances that no longer teach it effectively.” Being needed and nurturing have a symbiotic relationship and it is silly to not discuss the fact men are nurturing beings and at the core of masculinity is giving more than you get, i.e., contribution. And maybe within all that is an actual, real, issue.  Maybe we are not signaling strongly enough to young men how much they are needed for a healthy family, healthy community, healthy society and that their contributions matter.

While I may, personally, think its slightly absurd that we need to do this, or coddle male egos this way, it may be extremely fair that we need to vocalize, just a bit more and a bit more loudly, how much men are needed for a healthy economy and healthy community and healthy society. Maybe we need to be just a bit more specific that it’s not just that we need people, but we need men.

Ponder.

==

“We actually contain a built-in ability to rise above restriction, incapacity, or limitation and, as a result of this ability, possess a vital adaptive spirit that we have not yet fully accessed.”

Joseph Chilton Pearce

==

I have written about limitations as well as rules and breaking a rule before, but today this is just about potential and game theory (in a weird way). Game theory revolves around competition and objectives. Restrictions are less structured in that they are simply the things life offers up as suggestions of what is possible, not possible, safe, and unsafe (among other things). I tend to believe most people eye restrictions with a wary view. We are wary because restrictions suggest a lack of capacity to go farther than the restriction. That suggestion goes against the grain of how we feel about personal potential. We humans DO have a built-in ability to rise above limitations – given the right context that is.

Which leads me to suggest restrictions are rational things in an irrational world.

When restrictions are applied from a societal norm and community way, they actually encourage irrational consistencies. What I mean by that is if a restriction is rational simply by rising above a restriction is deemed irrational. To be fair. The rational consistencies within society demands that we review the idea of what is prescribed, the enforcement of those restrictions, and the rewards of rising above. Part of this rational assessment demands seeking some consistent demonstration of inferiority (below restriction outcomes) through some measurement. We also assess, subjectively, the cost to potential due to lack of deviation from the compulsory restrictions. But underneath it all, the part that chafes the most, is that most societal restrictions are crafted to mold people into what the existing system (power) machine needs. Yeah. Typically, the larger system is built to produce specific behavioral actions which can be measured so the restrictions can be held accountable (to the needs of the system, not human potential). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out then in an outcome of this is a version of pacification of people. The objectives, and mindsets, of community life and society is permeated by restriction measurement ultimately becoming the logic of society.

Which leads me to individual potential and society.

It was Margaret Thatcher who said “there is no such thing as society.” The Thatcher/Reagan era was almost the penultimate individual above all moment in history. That said. Thatcher stood for a particularly brutal version of individualism where there was no society just individuals competing. It was a warped view of progress where great things weren’t achieved collectively, but rather by looking within, grinding through life via will power and hard work to improve your own life (indifferent to everyone else attempting to do the same). It becomes a world of individuals, not a world of We. This is a form of restriction in and of itself and it has become the logic of society where individuals are society; not communities. This begets a society existing of relentless individualizing where the collective good, and progress, is renegotiated in a zero-sum fashion. To be clear. While society is, and always has been, a version of encouraging self reliance, society is not, in and of itself, of the individual, but the connection of individuals. In fact, extreme individualism crafts a restriction enhancing unhealthy reductionism of potential.

Which leads me to social capital.

Social capital is maybe the opposite of individualism (maybe not exactly). I would also suggest social capital is organic game theory. What I mean by that is social capital reflects the extent to which social networks embody norms of trust, reciprocity, and cooperation that facilitate collective action in the pursuit of shared goals. That pursuit of shared goals is where game theory comes in. people, naturally, like to win and, in particular, like to attain goals (shared or not). Social capital demands a willingness to cooperate with others; this includes a willingness to cooperate with strangers and without any clear potential for direct and indirect reciprocity. The goal, in this case, is some individualized vision of potential attained. But even social capital has boundaries it’s just that the restrictions, in this case, are a bit more vague and a lot more expansive than a reductionist individualistic view. That said. I have always found it a bit interesting that E.F. Schumacher wrote “Small is Beautiful: economics if people mattered” smack dab in the middle of the Reagan/Thatcher era. He posited all human activity is a striving after something thought of as good and, therefore, the question at hand becomes ‘good for whom?’ Unless that person has sorted out and coordinated his manifold urges, impulses, and desires, his strivings are likely to be confused, contradictory, self-defeating, and possibly highly destructive.” The restriction of individualism is that it inhibits the mobilization of a collective for a collective good. It is within a goal of collective good where any one individual may not achieve the highest material rewards and yet may achieve their highest potential. Therein lies individualism’s greatest lie – that material success is tied to potential. That narrative actually restricts potential, but also what we, people as humans, truly understand about life. The greatest potential in life is not found in the restriction of individualism, but rather rising above its restriction through collective action.

Which permits me to circle back to the beginning – most people are wary of restrictions; particularly ones that suggest radical individualism.  

Humans are multidimensional constructs who thrive on irrational consistencies. Humans thrive in the connectivity with other humans. Radical individualism, even “self reliance,” inhibits connectivity. It does so because it restricts what one gives in a cooperative context. The individualism tugs people to hold back something, even just a bit, for their own good. It, well, restricts potential. It may not seem rational to give up something for yourself to get more back (at some point), but, irrationally, that’s the way the most effective world works. Ponder.

==

“There is something in every one of you that waits and listens for the sound of the genuine in yourself. It is the only true guide you will ever have.”

Howard Thurman

==

Sounds touch things within us. What I mean by that is an external sound rings a certain bell within us. And that little bell within us guides our thoughts, memories and even our inner compass. I imagine I am suggesting that sounds trigger the genuine within. This genuineness can span discomfort to comforting. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that silence is also a ‘sound’ (just think of the silence that follows the last note of your favorite song).

Anyway. Your genuine self is a tricky thing. It “is” and, yet, it can be elusive in its clarity. And maybe that is where sound comes in. Sound offers a framing for clarity of the genuine within. So let me offer up some sounds:

• “and the dreams you dare to dream … really do come true.” These specific lyrics in “Over the Rainbow” make you ponder your dreams and, well, dreams are a reflection of your genuine ‘you.’ What more could you ask of sound?
• Church bells in the distance. It doesn’t matter if you are religious or not, believe in God or any higher being, church bells play to your soul and make an offering with their sound to what you genuinely feel about faith and life. They make you genuinely reflect.
• The crunch of fall leaves under your feet. It has always confounded me that the sound of dead leaves can make the air crackle with life. Maybe it is that subconscious conflict that creates some genuine feelings about life – past, present and future.
• The little sniff your dog makes as he nuzzles you when he knows, somehow, that something is wrong. The little sound tells you he is there in case you need someone. It is the sound of someone loving you more than they love themselves – maybe even more than Life itself. I tend to think it is the sound of unbounded companionship. I tend to believe it genuinely teaches you more about yourself than anything else.
• The drone of a propeller plane overhead. Have you ever noticed they seem to only be heard on days with blue skies and big puffy white clouds? It makes you genuinely think about where you are and where you could go.
• Horses’ hooves clattering on cobblestone. No matter where you are or what you are doing this sound will place you somewhere back in time. I am not sure there is another sound which sounds like history better than this one.
• Violins. I could probably have chosen any instrument well played, but the sweeping sounds of a group of violins or the single mournful tug in your heart from a solo violin in a Beethoven <place any great composer here> symphony? Well. Close your eyes. You genuinely “feel.”
• “Yes” <also “everything will be alright”>. There are moments when you listen to someone say something and then there are moments. You have shared your thoughts, maybe your dreams, maybe something you have held inside for a very very long time, i.e., something genuine. Nothing beats hearing you are right or all will be okay to create just a bit more solid foundation of whatever is genuine about yourself.
• The sound of rain gently falling on tree leaves. Maybe best in the morning just as you wake up. That light pitter patter on leaves just outside the window. Enough said.
• The soft quick crack of an ice cube placed in an already cold drink. You want something cool to drink. The crack is confirmation that you now have a cold drink. Even cooler. I sometimes believe this kind of ‘clarity sound’ provides an affirmation for a genuine desire.
• The pages of an old book rustling like an old parchment as you turn the pages. Its not just the rough feeling of that thicker paper, it is the sound that the pages make as you flip one over to read the dated type font and the words leap off the page with the sound of the rustling. Reading is never better. I sometimes believe it taps into genuine feelings the written words prompt better than ordinary books.
• The opening notes of your favorite song. You don’t need more than 5 seconds and you know exactly what the song is. More importantly? With the sound, within those 5 finite seconds, you enter an infinite space of memories, feelings, thoughts. This sound expands time. Some would call this sound a genuine miracle.
• James Earl Jones’ voice. From Roots to Lion King to Darth Vader, he could describe your death to you and you would sit enraptured to the final word. I imagine my point here is that a genuine voice taps into the genuine you.
• The inner voice we all have. Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound like James Earl Jones <which would possibly make it easier to pay attention to and believe>, but you hear it loud and clear on occasion. It is the sound of the ‘genuine’ within you. It is truly the only true guide you have. I wish it would speak more often, but I always try and listen closely for its whisper.

And, of course …

• Let me bundle a bunch here. “I love you” from someone you love, a sincere “thank you,” “I couldn’t have done this without you,” pick a phrase, there are a number of genuinely offered thoughts, in words, that pack such a punch you reflect a bit on what is genuinely important to you.

I’ll end with something I believe, but cannot prove. I believe we all ignore a shitload of what is genuine about us. That ‘genuine’ just makes us feel uncomfortable. It’s the shit that we just feel better ignoring. That is where sounds come in to play. A sound doesn’t allow us to ignore what is genuine within and we have to face it – the good and the bad. Ponder.

==

“What followed then was what invariably follows in the wake of every tortured consciousness. From what it dreads or hates, yet knows or feels to be unescapable, it takes refuge in that which may be hoped for – or at least imagined.”

Theodore Dreiser

==

“The road back to hope, to a new sense of place, is through the common spaces of our dreams.”

Teresa Hines

==

Search “hope” on my blog and you will get 24 pieces with Hope in its title and 760 pieces with hope somewhere within the piece. I am an unabashed Hope supporter as a proclaimed “cynical optimist.” So when Michele Obama said “hope is making a comeback” I certainly agreed.

Hope never really goes away, it just gets smothered if not suffocated by “realist,” “pragmatic” and the narratives of darkness and despair. The world does everything it can to strip away the value of hope.

The true challenge to hope is that the hopeful are pointed to as the ‘strange ones’ with unrealistic thoughts. It can even be suggested they have impossible thoughts. That’s absurd. Society demands hope and demands the civility to interact with strangers without holding their strangeness, or hope, against them and without forcing them to surrender or their strangeness … or hope. In fact, a healthy society permits people to maintain the traits that have made them hopeful. This means a true community is one with the ability to live with differences let alone let everyone benefit from it.

Which leads me to suggest hope does not come easily and certainly, or rarely, under its own impetus.

Hope demands some negotiated common interests. Hope needs a community which inevitably creates a safe haven of shared worries, shared anxieties, and even some shared unhappiness if not shared cynicism or skepticism. I could even argue those things anchor a community so that a thriving community can build shared hope, shared progress and shared prosperity upon that foundation. Yeah. The road back to hope is through a common space of dreams.

Which leads me to suggest dreams pave the path for hope.

Pragmatic desires undermine hope for progress. What I mean by that is hope for progress is never a matter of evidence nor is it a matter of some tangible objective. It is usually a coalescing of dreams turned into action (or actions). That said. Nothing is easier than to join all the cynics and skeptics together around a question which can be settled, theoretically, empirically. The world does not work that way. It cannot. The entire concept of progress is strewn with uneven bricks of evidence. And even in their unevenness they can offer glimpses of what could be, and what can be. They offer glimpses of hope. In their imperfection they pave the way for Hope. Unfortunately, that unevenness can also suggest a lack of universalism. It can suggest someone can step forward and other cannot (or will not). They suggest someone’s dreams are possible and some others are impossible. That suggestion is wrong. Progress is more a matter of changing direction and rather than thinking of progress as directed to a particular goal we should think of progress as a hopscotch from an uncomfortable situation to a less constrained situation which permits dreams to find a more comfortable space. Universal progress is a vague, if not impossible, objective. And that is where hope gets screwed. The promise of progress is an easier objective; if not easier promise. Its transactional, its pragmatic, and its small. Progress is not finite, it’s not ‘from A to B’, it’s not a straight line. That said. A symptom of lack of progress is a feeling of trauma, an infection, a pain. A symptom of lack of progress is a waning Hope.

Which leads me to Hope demands perspectives on, and from, many things.

Remember, hope is neither linear or transactional. This is important because when in a finite game, where the end is the objective, it is almost impossible to keep broad perspective or see beyond “that is not possible.” Hope demands one embrace at least some aspect of ‘anything is possible.’ As I have said before, moving from impossible to possible is progress. We should make it a vision. A mission. A logic. A technology of the mind. A flag. A war cry. A challenge. A hope. A strength. A bond. A promise. A map. A beginning. A talisman. A tattoo as something you truly believe in something. Anything is possible is actually about progress, not some specific objective or outcome. Anything is possible is at the soul of Hope. And it is making a comeback. Ponder.

==

“even a camel will drink poisoned water if it thinks it is dying of thirst”

==

“This is what I want to make clear today. A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far reaches of the Internet, should never run our government or command our military. He says he wants to make America great again, but, more and more, it seems his real message is Make America Hate Again.”

Hilary Clinton

==

One of the things I have been most consistently amazed by with regard to Trump is how often he suggests America is a shithole country. In fact. His whole premise for being a president is grounded on convincing everyone the country is in a shithole and he is the only one able to ‘un-shithole’ the country. The deeper the shithole you are convinced we are in, the deeper you will go on your solution. As someone brilliant once said, “extreme conditions demand extreme responses.” A shithole is an extreme condition. Trump is an extreme response. If you live in the fantasyland universe of America is in a shithole,” you will be a Trump supporter. But his whole schtick is to suck everyone into the shithole belief system, using a stream of lies and half-truths. Trump’s message, dumbed down for America, is simple: Make America great again and, uhm, this only works if enough people believe America is in enough of a shithole that it isn’t great now. I shared his image in 2015 to show he is a master at creating shithole perceptions:

These perceptions have some psychological roots. You look around at the relative carnage of the day seeing your plans in disarray and hopes & dreams nowhere in close proximity to your current reality and you think to yourself “how the hell did we get into this shithole.” That is where conviction comes into play. You, or we, are not really in a shithole, you just have had what you thought would happen or should be happening, well, not happen. And you have some threads of belief that exactly the same thing will happen again tomorrow AND is happening to everyone. Your conviction of ‘something better beyond the horizon’ is a little blurrier than it was the day before. Now. To be clear. Decades ago globalization, tied to multinational companies and institutions seeking to make larger profits through lowering costs, hollowed out a shitload of manufacturing jobs and businesses. That is a reality which has certainly created a halo of attitudes, perceptions, and some individual realities. Let me add small groups of people are desperately in worse shape, some people are in good shape, but have not improved, most people are doing fine, but hearing all the talk about the top 1% and feel entitled to some of what they got. That is reality. We have a higher standard of living than any country of any size in world. Our inflation is lower and our economy better, low unemployment, low overall violence <with isolated pockets which people distort to a larger view>. We have an incredible history of assimilating immigrants and, uhm, if immigration was truly an existential threat to “a great America” one would think that we would have done something about it sometimes in the past 20-ish years that the Right has been highlighting ‘invasions’ (usually every 2 years during an election cycle). To be clear. The US immigration system needs both structural and policy improvements, but immigration is not an existential issue.

Regardless. America is not a shithole country, and generally speaking we are in an economic boom (of which a significant swath of people are benefiting from) and we are actually investing in a better economic infrastructure now (which ensures not actually becoming a shithole country).

This may be the greatest example of the gap between perception and reality I have seen in my lifetime.

We ‘see’ something and then extrapolate it out in our minds to being a larger systemic issue. And maybe that is Trump’s most egregious asshole superpower. He distorts “the one” into “the many.” He implies an isolated situation is indicative of the greater whole. And he does it with such hyperbole <and lies> even if most people do not believe it, it elevates whatever perception you may already have a little higher <therefore, he drags more people closer to believing we are in a shithole, i.e., not great>. I imagine the fear Trump should have is that if he drives his dystopian view of who and what America is so far down into some wretched dark hole that people will only see darkness and enough people will sit up, look around or out the window and say “shit, it isn’t that bad or dark.” Oops. Not a shithole.

• ** “The America I live in is imperfect, but compared to the rest of the world, I think we’re doing okay.” Colin Cowherd

Which leads me to how Trump, and inevitably MAGA, perverts the idea of progress.

Trump looks at progress in terms of individuals seeking individual satisfaction in combination with an encouraging an attitude of individual escape from individually suffered discomfort. That thought is a derivative of something that Zygmunt Bauman suggested “progress no longer refers to forward drive and that society, rather than chase after a target spinning along ahead of us, instead seeks to make progress under the guise of ‘a lucky escape imperative’.” In other words it inspires the urge to run away from something, a crisis or a shithole disaster, that someone is suggesting is breathing down our necks. Let me be clear. Progress is not running away from something, but rather it is running towards something. That toward something should be a desired dream of a distant goal – one which progress should, could, and would eventually bring those of us seeking it, a better world not only for us, but one that serves all human needs. It should be the pursuit of shared improvement rather than just individual survival. And maybe that is where I will end because that is where the Trump vision begins. It doesn’t begin with any shared improvement, but rather individual fears. The Trump vision is grounded on the thought nations have lost influence on the course of not only its own affairs, but the affairs of all people which means that it has lost influence on guiding the world toward a ‘better destination’ and has lost the ability to mount a defense against all varieties of fear. The Trump vision encourages us all to believe this, therefore, it encourages us to dwell on your individual fear that you live in a shithole. It suggests your worry is not only an immediate worry, but a long-term worry, i.e., even if in your own life it doesn’t feel like a shithole, the shithole seems imminent. From there they offer no real solutions for progress and prosperity, just dubious tactics to salve your individual worry. Trump a black hole of no solutions. Shit. Trump IS a shithole asking people to live in his shithole view. But those who do see themselves in the shithole worldview, well, they are camels. And even a camel will drink poisoned water if it thinks it is dying of thirst. Ponder.

===

“Just because we don’t understand doesn’t mean that the explanation doesn’t exist.”

Madeleine L’Engle

==

There are a shitload of things that happen in the world, and to us specifically, of which we will never understand. In fact, the probability of never understanding something is higher than the probability of understanding.

Which leads me to probabilities.

In our minds, the more probable, the more likely there is an explanation. In the good old days, we didn’t speak of probabilities, we would sit down and pragmatically think about the likelihood of shit happening – both good shit and bad shit. And, yeah, most times when probabilities are being discussed these days “crisis” is tossed around and when ‘crisis’ enters the narrative we inevitably seek explanations – relentlessly seek explanations. Let me be clear. Crisis is never good. That said. There is certainly bad crisis, i.e., “the bottom has dropped out from under our feet and we are 5,000 feet up”, but then there is also good crisis, i.e., “holy shit, they loved it and we have an order for a 1,000,000 sock puppets but we only have a 1000 capability sock puppet manufacturing capacity.” Both are certainly a crisis just that one focuses on survivable and the other on thriveable. I share that to suggest explanation importance is relative.

Look. Explanations in Life are tricky things. This is why gamification was/is so appealing. But we know from research that finite progress (milestones, sprints, etc.) are a doom loop of chasing things in which people get trained to chase output instead of outcomes, items instead of impact, explanations instead of learning/understanding. People inherently gain greater satisfaction if they show progress – better today than yesterday, better tomorrow than today – so why don’t more people do so? Well. Progress can be a fuzzy thing with fuzzy explanations. Because of that we emphasize measurement which, unfortunately, heightens discomfort of the alternative; the plausible but not certain, the probabilities of, not the prediction of. The plausible does not usually equate to “is” and it is within the wretched hollow in-between where we become captive to nothingness where no explanations reside. This is where “there must be an explanation” falls. So, we twist ourselves into pretzels turning thoughts of plausibility into images of possibility, then images of probability, ultimately shaping/morph itself into a perception of “is.” We move the uncertainty ball into the certainty space, one explanation at a time, not because we actually believe it will make our lives meaningful, but rather because we fear the absence of certainty. Second is that, well, absence of a pursuit of explanations, you worry you may actually end up with nothing and knowing nothing about why you have nothing. Yeah. The truth is while business and society use “somethings” to make us captive of what are actually ‘nothings’, nothing is personal. What I mean by that is even though we may not view the world in a zero-sum way we fear having nothing at the end of the race. We show up to our meeting with Death with no explanation for what we did in our Life. Please note I am suggesting even in death we will reflect more on our ‘doings’ than on impact. That means we become a captive to a fear of nothing explained so we jump onboard the ‘something train’ and hope even if we don’t do anything meaningful (however that could actually be assessed) we will have something; rather than nothing. We make all of our ‘somethings’ explainable. Ponder.

Which leads me to end with an important reminder.

Preciseness, and rationalizing, explanations are mediated truths which deprive us of the ambiguity which is the engine of imagination. The enemy of imagination, and imagination revolutionaries, is certainly pragmatism, finiteness, and rationalization, uhm, explaining and explanations. To be clear, I tend to agree with “doesn’t mean an explanation doesn’t exist,” it’s just that our pursuit of ‘an’ explanation is reductionary rationalization rather than expansive imagination. Imagination has become ‘something to do,’ i.e., a pragmatic thing to do with a pragmatic objective. Imagination has been replaced by innovation pipelines, blue sky thinking workshops, and any number of constructed tasks to be deployed with a specific objective in mind. Everything. Imagination must be ‘explained.’ They become singular expressions of imaginative imagination when imagination should be embodied within an infinite thought and the pursuit of infiniteness. Yeah. Sometimes unexplained. Yeah. That’s a problem in today’s milestone/KPI/achievement obsessed world, but the essence of the imagination is located precisely in its improbability and imprecise explanations. In a probabilistic, finite-driven, rationalizing, world that is a challenge. That is why we need imagination revolutionaries who hold imagination high as the idea, and ideal, around which an imagination revolution can occur and a better future can not only be envisioned, but constructed. We need imagination revolutionaries who can embrace the idea that what we do not understand may have explanations, but those explanations will be beautiful, and plausible, in their impreciseness. Yeah. The power actually lies in the lack of definition. Ponder.

Today is my birthday.

I hate my birthdays.

Well. Okay. Not hate. Let’s say they are kind of like how I feel about New Year’s Eve. Just another day in the year unlike Christmas (a chubby guy with presents and egg nog with rum) and 4^th of July (you get to blow things up).

That said. For some people birthdays are special.

I keep hoping one day my birthday becomes as special to me as some birthdays are to other people. Storypeople (Brian Andreas) is one of my favorite artists and thoughtful saying artists. He summarized the thinking perfectly:

“I used to hate birthdays, she told me, until I figured out I was the Queen of the Universe & now I do them for the little people.”

storypeople

Me? I keep waiting for the day that I feel like the King of the Universe and start liking my birthday.

But for now? To all my friends who love their birthdays and celebrating it like Christmas … well … Happy Christmas! … oops  … Birthday!

I envy your ability to seize the opportunity to celebrate your life.

I tend to find the people who enjoy their birthdays as the people who know how to enjoy their lives.

The people who look at each birthday as an opportunity to smile a little about their life.

The people who seem to be glass is half full (if not more) type people.

They aren’t tortured souls, but rather more life celebrators.

I envy them because I think they have kept a little of their ‘little kid’ and not afraid to let everyone know it. The best don’t really care about the gift part at all (excepting maybe from someone really special in their lives) they enjoy the celebration. The enjoy the moment.

It’s fun to them getting together with a huge chocolate cake, ice cream and maybe tons of balloons and friends, family or loved ones.

And here is the real nuance.

I think they like to celebrate them, but love the fact that people actually remember it’s their birthday.

So. While I am certainly one of the non-birthday people (who could give a rat’s ass when it comes to my own day) I will make a big deal with someone else’s birthday if it’s important to them.

But most importantly I remember (or try as well as I can).

For the greatest gift I believe you can give a friend is found in the details.

So.

happy birthday.

And, in the end, here is one thing about your birthday that is truer than true:

“Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.”

Dr. Seuss